A multiplier bound approach to assess relative efficiency in DEA without slacks

In this paper, we propose a new approach to deal with the non-zero slacks in data envelopment analysis (DEA) assessments that is based on restricting the multipliers in the dual multiplier formulation of the used DEA model. It guarantees strictly positive weights, which ensures reference points on the Pareto-efficient frontier, and consequently, zero slacks. We follow a two-step procedure which, after specifying some weight bounds, results in an "Assurance Region"-type model that will be used in the assessment of the efficiency. The specification of these bounds is based on a selection criterion among the optimal solutions for the multipliers of the unbounded DEA models that tries to avoid the extreme dissimilarity between the weights that is often found in DEA applications. The models developed do not have infeasibility problems and we do not have problems with the alternate optima in the choice of weights that is made. To use our multiplier bound approach we do not need a priori information about substitutions between inputs and outputs, and it is not required the existence of full dimensional efficient facets on the frontier either, as is the case of other existing approaches that address this problem.

[1]  William W. Cooper,et al.  Choosing weights from alternative optimal solutions of dual multiplier models in DEA , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  Joe Zhu,et al.  Multiplier bounds in DEA via strong complementary slackness condition solution , 2003 .

[3]  Lawrence M. Seiford,et al.  Data envelopment analysis (DEA) - Thirty years on , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[4]  W. Cooper,et al.  RAM: A Range Adjusted Measure of Inefficiency for Use with Additive Models, and Relations to Other Models and Measures in DEA , 1999 .

[5]  A. Charnes,et al.  Polyhedral Cone-Ratio DEA Models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks , 1990 .

[6]  R. Dyson,et al.  Reducing Weight Flexibility in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1988 .

[7]  P. S. Dharmapala,et al.  DEA/AR efficiency and profitability of 14 major oil companies in U.S. exploration and production , 1996, Comput. Oper. Res..

[8]  B. Golany,et al.  Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA , 1993 .

[9]  Robert M. Thrall,et al.  Chapter 5 Duality, classification and slacks in DEA , 1996, Ann. Oper. Res..

[10]  William W. Cooper,et al.  Handbook on data envelopment analysis , 2011 .

[11]  篠原 正明,et al.  William W.Cooper,Lawrence M.Seiford,Kaoru Tone 著, DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS : A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000年, 318頁 , 2002 .

[12]  Russell G. Thompson,et al.  The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming , 1990 .

[13]  Gary R. Reeves,et al.  A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[14]  Kuo-Ping Chang,et al.  Linear production functions and the data envelopment analysis , 1991 .

[15]  Pascal Lang,et al.  Controlled Envelopment by Face Extension in DEA , 1995 .

[16]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 1978 .

[17]  Kaoru Tone,et al.  A comparative site evaluation study for relocating Japanese government agencies out of Tokyo , 2003 .

[18]  V. V. Podinovski,et al.  Side effects of absolute weight bounds in DEA models , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[19]  Victor V. Podinovski,et al.  DEA models for the explicit maximisation of relative efficiency , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Jie Wu,et al.  Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation , 2008 .

[21]  A. Charnes,et al.  Data transformations in DEA cone ratio envelopment approaches for monitoring bank performances , 1997 .

[22]  Wade D. Cook,et al.  Efficiency bounds in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1996 .

[23]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Zero weights and non-zero slacks: Different solutions to the same problem , 2006, Ann. Oper. Res..

[24]  Barton A. Smith,et al.  Comparative Site Evaluations for Locating a High-Energy Physics Lab in Texas , 1986 .

[25]  John E. Beasley,et al.  Comparing university departments , 1990 .

[26]  Ole Bent Olesen,et al.  Indicators of ill-conditioned data sets and model misspecification in data envelopment analysis: an extended facet approach , 1996 .

[27]  A. Bessent,et al.  Efficiency Frontier Determination by Constrained Facet Analysis , 1988, Oper. Res..

[28]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Weights restrictions and value judgements in Data Envelopment Analysis: Evolution, development and future directions , 1997, Ann. Oper. Res..

[29]  W. Cooper,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software , 1999 .

[30]  A. Charnes,et al.  A structure for classifying and characterizing efficiency and inefficiency in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1991 .

[31]  Hasan Bal,et al.  A new method based on the dispersion of weights in data envelopment analysis , 2008, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[32]  Kaoru Tone,et al.  A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[33]  Russell G. Thompson,et al.  DEA/AR-efficiency of U.S. independent oil/gas producers over time , 1992, Comput. Oper. Res..

[34]  B. Golany,et al.  Controlling Factor Weights in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1991 .

[35]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Programming with linear fractional functionals , 1962 .

[36]  Jesús T. Pastor,et al.  An enhanced DEA Russell graph efficiency measure , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[37]  Cláudia S. Sarrico,et al.  Restricting virtual weights in data envelopment analysis , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[38]  P. S. Dharmapala,et al.  Linked-cone DEA profit ratios and technical efficiency with application to Illinois coal mines , 1995 .